 |
 |
On 3/5/10 1:10 PM, Houghton,Andrew wrote: >> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of >> Bill Dueber >> Sent: Friday, March 05, 2010 12:30 PM >> To: [log in to unmask] >> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Q: XML2JSON converter >> >> On Fri, Mar 5, 2010 at 12:01 PM, Houghton,Andrew<[log in to unmask]> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Too bad I didn't attend code4lib. OCLC Research has created a >>> >> version of >> >>> MARC in JSON and will probably release FAST concepts in MARC binary, >>> MARC-XML and our MARC-JSON format among other formats. I'm wondering >>> whether there is some consensus that can be reached and standardized >>> >> at LC's >> >>> level, just like OCLC, RLG and LC came to consensus on MARC-XML. >>> Unfortunately, I have not had the time to document the format, >>> >> although it >> >>> fairly straight forward, and yes we have an XSLT to convert from >>> >> MARC-XML to >> >>> MARC-JSON. Basically the format I'm using is: >>> >>> >>> >> The stuff I've been doing: >> >> http://robotlibrarian.billdueber.com/new-interest-in-marc-hash-json/ >> >> ... is pretty much the same, except: >> > I decided to stick closer to a MARC-XML type definition since its would be easier to explain how the two specifications are related, rather than take a more radical approach in producing a specification less familiar. Not to say that other approaches are bad, they just have different advantages and disadvantages. I was going for simple and familiar. > > I certainly would be will to work with LC on creating a MARC-JSON specification as I did in creating the MARC-XML specification. > > > Andy. > A CouchDB friend of mine just pointed me to the BibJSON format by the Bibliographic Knowledge Network: http://www.bibkn.org/bibjson/index.html Might be worth looking through for future collaboration/transformation options. Benjamin